News Category 2
Homes for Haringey v Barbara Fari and Piper Fari: A New Era in Fighting Fraud - Jennifer Harris & Mark Dyson, Plexus Law
22/11/13. The fight against insurance fraud took an important step forward when Barbara Fari was sentenced to three months in prison for contempt of court after grossly exaggerating a personal injury claim. Her husband, Piper, also found guilty of contempt for his part in supporting his wife's claim, was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months. The couple have been ordered to pay the defendant’s costs assessed in the sum of £100,000...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/bedo
Whiplash and the Cost of Living - Shirley Denyer, Shirley Denyer LLP & Knowledge Services Consultant for FOIL
19/11/13. The long-awaited Government proposals on whiplash have now been published. With energy prices and below inflation pay already dominating the political agenda, it appears that whiplash is also now part of the debate with Chris Grayling identifying abuse of the system and its resulting impact on insurance premiums as a cost of living issue.
As set out in the consultation earlier this year, the Government is focusing on fraud and exaggeration to reduce the costs of whiplash claims and bring down premiums. It does not support at this stage an increase in the Small Claims Track limit and rejects the recommendation of the Transport Select Committee to reduce the limitation period for RTA claims, focusing instead on achieving change in two ways: by improving the quality of medical evidence; and by introducing specific measures to challenge fraud...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/angelhell
Limiting Costs on Assessment to RTA Protocol Fixed Costs - Matthew Hoe, Jaggards & Taylor Rose Law
18/11/13. On assessment of costs, the court can decide the reasonable and proportionate amount to allow may be no more than fixed costs for the RTA Protocol where the claimant has unreasonably exited that protocol. That was the decision of Master Simons in the recent case of Davies, Ollin and Ollin v Greenway (30th October 2013, SCCO, unreported).
That may sound unremarkable, but it may be the first decision of its kind and is a watershed case. It confirms the court has broader powers with regard to costs in cases unreasonably exited from the RTA Protocol.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
“Enforcing Compliance”: The Stricter Sanctions Regime Post-Jackson - Monika Sobiecki, Pump Court Chambers
17/11/13. Much ink has been spilled on the subject of the Jackson reforms to civil litigation, which came into effect on 1 April 2013. The major focus of attention has been on the dramatically shifting landscape of litigation funding and the introduction of the costs management procedure in multi-track cases. However, Jackson also introduced one further set of reforms which, despite the fact they have the potential to be radical and far-reaching, have been quietly ushered in and seem to have largely passed under the radar of the legal press. These are the proposed reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules – particularly changes to the overriding objective and the procedure for applying for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. This article aims to ensure that what may be an important procedural alteration and change in emphasis is not neglected by practitioners!
Image ©iStockphoto.com/sellingoutstieglitz
Smith and Others v Ministry of Defence; Ellis v Ministry of Defence; Allbutt v Ministry of Defence: Judges in the Combat Zone or Policing State Immunity? - Jennifer Lee & Oliver Newman, Pump Court Chambers
16/11/13. The cases involved the death of three soldiers serving in Iraq. Military operations in Iraq covered two distinct phases; 19th March-30th April 2003 major combat operations were undertaken, 1st May-July 2009 major combat operations ceased and were replaced with a period of military occupation. During this first period of operations Corporal Stephen Allbutt was killed and others injured in a ‘friendly fire’ incident (“the Challenger claims”). The Challenger claims were brought in negligence at common law only. The basis of the claims was that firstly the tanks were not equipped with target identity devices to automatically identify friendly units or situational awareness equipment and secondly the MOD had failed to provide adequate training pre-deployment and in theatre.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Rockfinder
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
